(Super. Ct. No. CM032803)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant James Wayne Kriebel entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession of ammunition by a felon. The court placed him on three years formal probation. On appeal, defendant contends the imposition of a probation condition prohibiting him from using medical marijuana was an abuse of discretion and a violation of his state and federal privacy rights. We affirm the judgment.
Because defendant pleaded no contest, we set forth the following facts as stated in the probation report:
During a routine traffic stop of a truck driven by defendant, a felon, police found a marijuana pipe with residue on it, a glass methamphetamine pipe with residue on it, a shotgun beanbag round, two live shotgun rounds, a bandolier with nine more live shotgun rounds, and two bottles of prescription pills (including Hydrocodone), neither bearing defendant's name.
Defendant told police he had been convicted of a felony, but claimed he did not know it was illegal for him to possess ammunition. He also told police that one of the bottles of pills belonged to his wife and the other to him, although he no longer had a prescription for it.
Charged with possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)--count 1) and possession of Hydrocodone, a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)--count 2), defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 and admitted a prior felony conviction in Nevada for possession of methamphetamine, in exchange for dismissal of count 2 subject to a waiver pursuant People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years formal probation. Over a defense objection, the court ordered defendant to comply with special condition No. 4, which states as follows: "Totally refrain from the use, control, or possession of any controlled substance unless with a current prescription from a licensed physician. . . . No Prop 215 marijuana recommendations allowed."